两种尿激酶间歇溶栓法在PICC导管堵塞再通中的应用比较  

Comparative study on the recanalization effective of PICC catheter by using two different methods of urokinase thrombolysis intermittently

作　　者：乔爱珍[1] 陈玉静[1] 马威[1] 段丽娜[2] 

机构地区：[1]空军总医院PICC治疗小组,北京100142 [2]空军总医院护理部,北京100142

出　　处：《中华现代护理杂志》2013年第22期2718-2721,共4页Chinese Journal of Modern Nursing

摘　　要：目的探讨PICC导管堵塞后用尿激酶间歇溶栓两种再通手法的有效性、便捷性和经济成本。方法选择血栓性完全堵塞的PICC置管患者52例，随机分成对照组和实验组各26例，两组均采用尿激酶间歇溶栓，对照组用“三通一负压吸引”的手法，实验组用“注射器-负压吸引”的手法，比较两种手法抽吸10次的操作时间，溶栓结果，导管再通时间，耗材数量和经济成本，并进行统计学分析。结果导管再通率实验组为96．15％，对照组为92．32％，差异无统计学意义（X2=0．517，P〉0．05）；PICC导管再通时间实验组为（26．88±18．30）min，对照组为（79．52±74．35）min，耗材所发生的直接经济成本实验组（82．25±0．61）元，对照组（90．86±4．02）元，两组比较差异均有统计学意义（t值分别为8．22，3．44，10．59；P〈0．01）；护士感觉实验组操作难度和手的疲劳感均低于对照组，差异有统计学意义（P〈0．01）。结论尿激酶间歇溶栓法用“注射器-负压吸引”的手法优于“三通-负压吸引”的手法。Objective To explore and compare the effectiveness, convenience and economic cost of two different methods of urokinase thrombolysis intermittently to recanalize PICC catheter. Methods 52 thrombotic completely blocked patients with PICC catheters were chosen and randomly divided into the experimental group and the control group, each with 26 cases. Both groups used the urokinase thrombolysis intermittently methods, the control group used ＂tee-vacuum suction＂ method while the experimental group used ＂ injector-vacuum suction＂ method. Operation time for 10 suctions, results of thrombolysis, recanalization time, number of consumptive materials and economic cost were analyzed and compared between two groups. Results The recanalization rate was 96.15% in the experimental group and 92.32% in the control group, with statistically significant difference （ X2 = 0. 517, P 〉 0.05 ）. The recanalization time and economic cost of consumptive materials were respectively （ 26.88 ± 18.30 ） rain and （ 82. 25 ± 0. 61 ） yuan in the experimental group, （ 79.52 ± 74.35）min and （ 90.86 ± 4.02 ） yuan in the control group, and the differences were statistically significant （t = 8.22,3.44,10.59, respectively; P 〈 0.01 ）. Nurses＇ operative difficulty and feeling of hand fatigue were also loser in the experimental group than in the control group, and the difference was statistically significant （ P 〈0.01 ）. Conclusions ＂Injector-vacuum suction＂ is better than ＂tee-vacuum suction＂ as urokinase thrombolysis intermittently method.

关 键 词：PICC 导管堵塞 尿激酶 溶栓 负压吸引 三通法 注射器法 

分 类 号：R472[医药卫生—护理学]